OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of MMR deficiency (dMMR) in contemporary reclassified high-grade endometrial carcinomas and correlate dMMR with molecular alterations and patient outcome. METHODS: In this study we evaluated the expression of MLH1, MSH2, PMS2 and MSH6 assessed by two different methods in a series of 102 high-grade endometrial carcinomas. The series was comprised of 64 high-grade endometrioid carcinomas (HGEC), 27 serous (ESC), and 11 clear cell (CCC) carcinomas. Absence of expression in any of the proteins was considered dMMR. dMMR was correlated with clinicopathological parameters using a Chi-square test. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of dMMR was 28% (29/102) and was seen in 29/64 (45%) HGEC but not detected in any of the ESC and CCC. Within HGEC, dMMR was associated with loss of ARID1A (p=0.0099), loss of PTEN (p=0.044) and wild-type TP53 (p=0.024) expression. dMMR was associated with increased risk for disease specific death by univariate analysis (p=0.013) among stage III/IV HGEC but not in multivariate analysis (p=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-grade endometrial carcinomas, dMMR is restricted to HGEC and could be used as an adjunct diagnostic tool to refute a diagnosis of ESC. The association with dMMR in HGEC with ARID1A/PTEN alterations, TP53 wild type expression pattern and unfavorable outcome suggests that different oncogenetic pathways within HGEC are present.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of MMR deficiency (dMMR) in contemporary reclassified high-grade endometrial carcinomas and correlate dMMR with molecular alterations and patient outcome. METHODS: In this study we evaluated the expression of MLH1, MSH2, PMS2 and MSH6 assessed by two different methods in a series of 102 high-grade endometrial carcinomas. The series was comprised of 64 high-grade endometrioid carcinomas (HGEC), 27 serous (ESC), and 11 clear cell (CCC) carcinomas. Absence of expression in any of the proteins was considered dMMR. dMMR was correlated with clinicopathological parameters using a Chi-square test. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of dMMR was 28% (29/102) and was seen in 29/64 (45%) HGEC but not detected in any of the ESC and CCC. Within HGEC, dMMR was associated with loss of ARID1A (p=0.0099), loss of PTEN (p=0.044) and wild-type TP53 (p=0.024) expression. dMMR was associated with increased risk for disease specific death by univariate analysis (p=0.013) among stage III/IV HGEC but not in multivariate analysis (p=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-grade endometrial carcinomas, dMMR is restricted to HGEC and could be used as an adjunct diagnostic tool to refute a diagnosis of ESC. The association with dMMR in HGEC with ARID1A/PTEN alterations, TP53 wild type expression pattern and unfavorable outcome suggests that different oncogenetic pathways within HGEC are present.
Authors: Karolin Heinze; Tayyebeh M Nazeran; Sandra Lee; Pauline Krämer; Evan S Cairns; Derek S Chiu; Samuel Cy Leung; Eun Young Kang; Nicola S Meagher; Catherine J Kennedy; Jessica Boros; Friedrich Kommoss; Hans-Walter Vollert; Florian Heitz; Andreas du Bois; Philipp Harter; Marcel Grube; Bernhard Kraemer; Annette Staebler; Felix Kf Kommoss; Sabine Heublein; Hans-Peter Sinn; Naveena Singh; Angela Laslavic; Esther Elishaev; Alex Olawaiye; Kirsten Moysich; Francesmary Modugno; Raghwa Sharma; Alison H Brand; Paul R Harnett; Anna DeFazio; Renée T Fortner; Jan Lubinski; Marcin Lener; Aleksandra Tołoczko-Grabarek; Cezary Cybulski; Helena Gronwald; Jacek Gronwald; Penny Coulson; Mona A El-Bahrawy; Michael E Jones; Minouk J Schoemaker; Anthony J Swerdlow; Kylie L Gorringe; Ian Campbell; Linda Cook; Simon A Gayther; Michael E Carney; Yurii B Shvetsov; Brenda Y Hernandez; Lynne R Wilkens; Marc T Goodman; Constantina Mateoiu; Anna Linder; Karin Sundfeldt; Linda E Kelemen; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Martin Widschwendter; Usha Menon; Kelly L Bolton; Jennifer Alsop; Mitul Shah; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Paul Dp Pharoah; James D Brenton; Kara L Cushing-Haugen; Holly R Harris; Jennifer A Doherty; Blake Gilks; Prafull Ghatage; David G Huntsman; Gregg S Nelson; Anna V Tinker; Cheng-Han Lee; Ellen L Goode; Brad H Nelson; Susan J Ramus; Stefan Kommoss; Aline Talhouk; Martin Köbel; Michael S Anglesio Journal: J Pathol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 9.883
Authors: Daniel D Buchanan; Yen Y Tan; Michael D Walsh; Mark Clendenning; Alexander M Metcalf; Kaltin Ferguson; Sven T Arnold; Bryony A Thompson; Felicity A Lose; Michael T Parsons; Rhiannon J Walters; Sally-Ann Pearson; Margaret Cummings; Martin K Oehler; Penelope B Blomfield; Michael A Quinn; Judy A Kirk; Colin J Stewart; Andreas Obermair; Joanne P Young; Penelope M Webb; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martin Köbel; Bo Meng; Lien N Hoang; Noorah Almadani; Xiaodong Li; Robert A Soslow; C Blake Gilks; Cheng-Han Lee Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Juan M Rosa-Rosa; Susanna Leskelä; Eva Cristóbal-Lana; Almudena Santón; Ma Ángeles López-García; Gloria Muñoz; Belen Pérez-Mies; Michele Biscuola; Jaime Prat; Oliva Esther; Robert A Soslow; Xavier Matias-Guiu; Jose Palacios Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Anthony N Karnezis; Lien N Hoang; Mackenzie Coatham; Sarah Ravn; Noorah Almadani; Basile Tessier-Cloutier; Julie Irving; Bo Meng; Xiaodong Li; Christine Chow; Jessica McAlpine; Kuan-Ting Kuo; Tsui-Lien Mao; Bojana Djordjevic; Robert A Soslow; David G Huntsman; C Blake Gilks; Martin Köbel; Cheng-Han Lee Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Emily Rayner; Inge C van Gool; Claire Palles; Stephen E Kearsey; Tjalling Bosse; Ian Tomlinson; David N Church Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 60.716